In these now consolidated actions, in which plaintiff sues for legal malpractice and defendant attorneys sue plaintiff for attorneys's default and defendants obtained a judgment entitling them to attorneys's motion to vacate her defaults was properly denied in view of her failure to demonstrate reasonable excuses therefor and that her malpractice claims and her opposition to defendants' claim for attorneys' fees possess merit (see, Eisenstein v. Rose, 135 A.D.2d 369). The denial of vacatur is particularly appropriate since the record discloses that plaintiff and her attorney have during this protracted litigation consistently neglected and disregarded court directives (see, Hartwich v. Young, 149 A.D.2d 769) and vacatur of plaintiff's defaults after such protracted litigation would result in substantial prejudice to defendants.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.